Robbing the Cradle

Presidential candidates are cashing in on “student” contributions. But who’s really giving?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Though child labor was supposedly outlawed 75 years ago, an increasing number of children appear to be laboring in the murky backwaters of politics. At least that’s what their parents are telling the Federal Election Commission.

Take 14-year-old Chad Byrd, a high school freshman in Huntsville, Texas, and $1,000 contributor to presidential hopeful Phil Gramm. Byrd doesn’t have a job, but says, “Every time I got money I’ve put it in the bank.”

He likes Gramm, he says, because of his tough stance on welfare reform. When asked exactly what in Gramm’s reform plan he supports, he pauses, then offers, “I agree on everything he said.” Ring up another $1,000 for the Gramm campaign. Perhaps coincidentally, the amount Byrd gave to the candidate is the same sum his grandparents gave–the maximum $1,000 donation.

Contributors like Byrd are listed as “students” in the Federal Election Commission ledger. So far this year, hundreds of “students” around the country have contributed the maximum $1,000 donation to campaigns, for a total of $230,000. The biggest beneficiaries are two struggling Republican presidential candidates–Phil Gramm ($51,000) and Lamar Alexander ($42,000).

The Clinton/Gore campaign trails behind with $21,000, while Republican front-runner Bob Dole lags even further back, with $12,000 in student donations.

According to FEC regulations, laundering campaign donations through another individual–even if it’s your own child– is illegal and can result in fines up to twice the size of the donation. What do some of the kids who have given $1,000 say about their candidates?

Cate Gogol, 14, and her 12-year-old brother, Nikolas Gogol, have their hearts set on Dick Lugar for president. Their father, David Gogol, also gave the maximum contribution. A consultant for the lobbying firm Sagamore Associates in Washington, D.C., their dad might have had his own reason to do a little at-home lobbying: He used to be Lugar’s legislative director.

Leighton Blount, a 19-year-old student at North Carolina State, is a big Gramm fan. He must be, because his father, the North Carolina finance chairman of “Phil Gramm for President,” surely knows it would be illegal to make a contribution through his son.

Katherine Caldwell, an 18-year-old freshman biology student at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, says she’s not all that interested in politics, though her dad once took her to hear a campaign speech by Lamar Alexander. She says her donation to Alexander was “not so much my choice.” When asked where the money came from, she replies: “Well, I didn’t work for it.” Incidentally, both her dad and her mom gave maximum $1,000 contributions to Alexander.

Mark Boswell, a 25-year-old recent graduate of the Pepperdine University law school, isn’t nearly as coy. He says he’s a big fan of Phil Gramm, but admits he “got the money from my parents.” David, Adam, and Robert Coggin, from Murfreesboro, Tenn., are all college students. They’re also big Lamar Alexander boosters whose contributions total $3,000. Adam, 18, claims his cool grand came from saving up. David, 22, says, “I was working since I was 13 and am real involved in the stock market.”

Tom Caestecker, 26, seems to be another Wall Street whiz. A recent graduate from DePaul University in Chicago with a master’s degree in history, he sprang for a $1,000 donation to Gramm, saying he “invested pretty well in some stocks.”

Every one of these financial barons gave the $1,000 maximum to the same presidential candidate as their parents. So much for youthful rebellion.

During the last three years, student money has flowed primarily to the candidates who appear to be struggling the most–and might need their most ardent supporters to give more than legally possible.

While Republican presidential candidates are raking it in now, last year Democrats raised the most, with Ted Kennedy finishing on top with $60,000.

This could, of course, simply reflect a budding political youth movement–kids trading their Reebok allowance for political muscle. But they sure are starting young.

One contributor who was called on the phone proved particularly reticent. According to the woman who took the call: “I don’t believe he can talk yet.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate